U V UTTAMCHANDANI Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 11.02.2004 in C.W.P. No. 3542/1990. The present Appellant had filed a writ proceeding seeking various reliefs in the form of directions. By the impugned judgment that writ petition, seeking the reliefs against the Delhi University, was dismissed.

(2.) The writ petitioner, an engineering graduate claims to have had 16 years working experience when he applied to the post of University Engineer on 16.11.1977, in the pay scale of ' 1100-50-1600. He was offered appointment as temporary work-charged Executive Engineer, through a letter dated 29.05.1978 which he accepted. In 1990, the Appellant filed the writ petition seeking several reliefs including a declaration that his appointment should be treated as on to a regular post of University Engineer. During the course of hearing in the appeal, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Appellant argued that in view of the subsequent events especially having regard to the fact that the Appellant and the other contender to the same position, (who was arrayed as second Respondent in the writ petition i.e. Mr. S.P. Goel have now both superannuated)dispute pressed would only be in respect of whether the Appellant was legally or justifiably overlooked for the post of Superintending Engineering 1986. It is a matter of record that Mr. S.P. Goel, the second Respondent who was also working as Executive Engineer, was in fact considered and promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer on 15.12.1986.

(3.) It was also contended on behalf of the Appellant that he was a graduate engineer and that merely because he accepted the position of Executive Engineer in a work-charged establishment, the University could not decline him regular appointment, having regard to his qualification and work experience. Learned counsel relied upon the advertisement which he said nowhere disclosed that the post sought to be filled was a work-charged post, but was likely to continue. It was also stated during the course of proceedings that in its affidavit, Delhi University had not denied that the Appellant was applying for a temporary position.